You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
3

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Philosophically, I like the idea of anarchy but pragmatically speaking, I agree minarchy is probably more realistic.

It'd be interesting to hear e.g., David Friedman's take on what private/individual/voluntary-association-based defense against an invading army might look like under anarcho-capitalism, though. Seems like the kind of question that gets to the core of why states arise and to what degree they're more or less beneficial and to whom.

0
1

[–] VoatsNewfag 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A constitutional republic like america once has been (before it got turned into today's democracy) seemed to work out really great.

1
1

[–] Mylon 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

It's simple game theory. Anarchy > state > gangs > anarchy. State is preferable to gangs, therefore we begrudgingly accept the state.

0
1

[–] Greenzero86 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What if the state is a gang itself, just one that claims to be justified over the other non-state gangs?

0
0

[–] 1HepCat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Are you saying there is no stable/steady -state and that we're doomed to repeat history endlessly because every system has it's faults relative to some other and if we spend enough time under one we'll eventually forget the downsides of the others?

Interesting... Alternately (or additionally) are you saying something like the state is the worst system apart from all the others?